Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 299
  1. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by nesman89
    I thought the whole point of this forum was to express your own opinion about the topic being discussed.
    It is, and you can, and just for the record, the topic being discussed about gay marraige and polygamy, and not whether or not gayness is a choice... but you can talk about it if you want! I like open forums
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by nesman89
    We have a higher level of thinking which determines what choices we can make. they are called animals because they don't "think" they just do
    animals don't think? interesting observation. I've observed otherwise, it seems.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by nesman89
    you can choose to do whatever you like. again just because someone thinks it's right doesn't make it so. polygamists thought their way of life was a commandment from God but the Government decided it wasn't and made it illegal.(they are a minority also speaking of minority rights) even though many still practice it today. it is not recognized as a valid marriage. hence many people are homosexual because they choose to be. so as the polygamy arguement goes it shouldn't be recognized as a valid marriage either.
    What do mean, and could you give us some evidence of homosexuality being a choice?
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by nesman89
    you can choose to do whatever you like. again just because someone thinks it's right doesn't make it so. polygamists thought their way of life was a commandment from God but the Government decided it wasn't and made it illegal.(they are a minority also speaking of minority rights) even though many still practice it today. it is not recognized as a valid marriage. hence many people are homosexual because they choose to be. so as the polygamy arguement goes it shouldn't be recognized as a valid marriage either.
    I think you touched on something here. Polygamy is largely a religious thing, right? That is, some religious sects believe God okays it, or whatever? Most other religious sects see otherwise.

    Similarly, the current state of gay marriage is largely, if not totally, a result of what religious sects think.

    So, in conclusion, we must outlaw Religion so the rest of us can get along. Problem solved.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael

    So, in conclusion, we must outlaw Religion so the rest of us can get along. Problem solved.
    I bet this would be true.
  6. nesman89's Avatar
    Posts
    5 Posts
    Global Posts
    6 Global Posts
    #46  
    So at least you accept the fact that there are homosexuals by nature also in humans, you just think they should choose not act according to it. Why not?
    I certainly accept the fact that there are homosexuals. Now if I go biblical as to why I think they should not act then I get slammed for believing in a book that is made up and not fact. and we all know everything "proven" by the scientific community is "fact"
  7. #47  
    As soon as I meet someone who actually follows every word, law, and regulation set forth in the Bible (let alone "believe" in it), then I'll begin seriously considering those opinions.

    Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. Not beating up, harrasing, or denying rights to individuals is a choice. That's pretty clear, I think.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  8. nesman89's Avatar
    Posts
    5 Posts
    Global Posts
    6 Global Posts
    #48  
    As soon as I meet someone who actually follows every word, law, and regulation set forth in the Bible (let alone "believe" in it), then I'll begin seriously considering those opinions.
    Same could be said about the judge who set's the law and then is participating in illegal drug activity. why should this be tolerated? oh and by the way just like I stated early Bible bashing = good Gay bashing = bad

    equal rights anyone?
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Uh Oh.
    lol
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    Why not? What justification for gay marriage doesn't apply to polygamy? Is your argument that gay couples stay together for a long time, but polygamist marriages don't? I doubt there are any statistics that back that up.
    The issue of gay marriage first arose in the context of government discrimination. The states, the federal government, and even the private sector grants and withholds benefits and privileges to citizens based upon marital status. This is a form of discrimination in which benefits and privileges are available to one class of citizen that are denied to another on the basis of status in the absence of any demonstrable interest in doing so. The question is whether or not this kind of discrimination is good public policy. We have pretty much concluded that we do not want government to be able to discriminate between citizens based upon nothing more than status, e.g., age, race, gender, ethnicity, previous condition of servitiude, or sexual preference.

    However, even if one concludes that such discrimination is bad public policy, it seems to me that "gay marriage" is a questionable solution. It does have the advantage of simplicity. It beats having to litigate and re-legislate all of the discriminatory laws one by one.

    The federal government does not generally legislate marriage, polygamous, gay, incestuous or otherwise. Most states do not specifically outlaw polygamy, only bigamy; Utah and some other western states do. My reading of the history is that Utah did so to ease its admission into the Union.

    Massachusetts did not have laws against gay marriage but it did have a provision in its constitution that forbade the state from discrimination. Its courts found that the state pervasively discriminated and said that one way to remedy the problem would be to allow people of the same gender to "marry."

    Most people do not seem to care as much about gay marriage as they do about systematic discrimination. Even the minority that oppose it seem to be more concerned with the loss of their discretion to discriminate than about other people's living arrangements. Unfortunately, this minority is identified with historic discrimination based on race and gender. Time and history are not on the side of this minority.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by scottymomo
    ......So I guess, here comes the "being gay is/is not a choice" debate
    Heterosexuals can choose to engage in homosexual activity but they cannot change their sexual preference. Does anyone still seriously believe that homosexuals can change their preference any more easily than heterosexuals can?
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    .......So, in conclusion, we must outlaw Religion so the rest of us can get along. Problem solved.
    Gender, sexual orientation, and religion are all important elements of a person's identity. One should not be any more troublesome than another. The problem arises when one is certain that his identity is so obviously superior to that of others that he should be permittted to use the coercive power of the state to enforce it on others or to withhold the benefits of citizenship from those who are not like him.
    Last edited by whmurray; 07/12/2006 at 02:07 PM.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Heterosexuals can choose to engage in homosexual activity but they cannot change their sexual preference. Does anyone still seriously believe that homosexuals can change their preference any more easily than heterosexuals can?
    I think it's the word "preference" that gets in the way. The term "preference" conotes choice. If one is genetically predisposed, there is no choice regarding that orientation. There is a choice of whether to act in accordance with that orientation.

    I think that in the on-going struggle for acceptance, the term "sexual preference" was used to soften the message. However, now that the society has been better conditioned for acceptance, the same term becomes its own hurdle.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Heterosexuals can choose to engage in homosexual activity but they cannot change their sexual preference. Does anyone still seriously believe that homosexuals can change their preference any more easily than heterosexuals can?
    Yes nesman89, if you are so sure its a choice, how about you choosing to be gay? Not so easy, isn't it? You chose to believe its a choice, thats all.

    Surur
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    ......Isn't the classification of homosexual one that is predicated on the act--not merely the sex act itself, but the distinction that the sex act happens to occur between two people of the same gender?
    Heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts still identify themselves as heterosexuals based upon their orientation.
    Last edited by whmurray; 07/12/2006 at 02:06 PM.
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I think it's the word "preference" that gets in the way. The term "preference" conotes choice. If one is genetically predisposed, there is no choice regarding that orientation. There is a choice of whether to act in accordance with that orientation.

    I think that in the on-going struggle for acceptance, the term "sexual preference" was used to soften the message. However, now that the society has been better conditioned for acceptance, the same term becomes its own hurdle.
    I will accept orientation.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I will accept orientation.
    So, what is the scope of "sexual orientation"? Is the gender of the sexual partner the only factor of one's orientation?
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Hmmm. It would seem to separate a lifestyle that is about the act [sex] undermines the argument for homosexual marriage.
    Not at all. For (most) homosexuals marriage does not seem to be a prerequisite for sex, so marriage obviously is not about sex for them (it may be different for you, I don't know ).

    Homosexual marriage is about sharing the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals when they want to form an enduring relationship and marry.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by nesman89
    you can choose to do whatever you like. again just because someone thinks it's right doesn't make it so.
    I realize you didn't answer my question:
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Since it is consensual and it doesn't hurt anybody, why should [homosexuals] choose not to participate [in expressing their feelings for one another etc.]?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    So, what is the scope of "sexual orientation"? Is the gender of the sexual partner the only factor of one's orientation?
    Of course. This, and whether you use Palm OS, Symbian, or Windows Mobile.

    (You know sexual orientation it isn't the only factor, nobody ever said so. )
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions